well having studied their tactics and seen them fly, and even controlled them on a couple of occasions, for the most part they are inferior. The Helmet Mounted sight is good as are most Russian IR missiles but the Russians have no BVR (beyond Visual range) capability/ Also the planes are heavily GCI (ground control intercept) dependent . You make the plane look great at an airshow but tactical performance is what matters. THere is a reason the Germans are not doing much with their Mig-29's. They are falling apart.

The SU-27 and it's many new variants are the best overall FSu fighter out there, but the weapons, tactics and pilot training standards are not up to most Western Tactics and standards.

(This is all on an unclassified level) The classified info on these is better for discussion to bad we can't talk here, but that info from an unclass view proves my point.

We're still talking about aircraft, right? If the MiG-23, MiG-25, MiG-29, MiG-31, Su-27family, Su-37 etc. do not have BVR capability (according to your definition), than neither does the F-15, F-16 etc.

"Also the planes are heavily GCI (ground control intercept) dependent"

Well, duh! How else can you defend a country who's border is over 30,000km long?! How is that a flaw anyways? Couldn't the same be said about NATO's dependance on AWACS a/c?

"They are falling apart."

Maybe leaving all those Fulcrums out all winter long without touching them once wasn't such a good idea after all.

"but the weapons, tactics and pilot training standards are not up to most Western Tactics and standards."

Why is it that you people always think that if something is different it has to be inferior?

actually the Russian do not have a fully operational AMRAAM missile with the BVR capes of the USA. This is fact. The Russians have great IR missiles but no BVR, anbd yes the US has a great BVR cape (the classified ranges might suprise you). Yes the russians are trying the 'AMRAAMski' as it is dubed but not working yet.

Everything I stated is true. I wasn't making it up or stating opinion. It is all things I have studied on both a classified and unclassified level, and flown against for years.

Oh and NATO's use of AWACS is a little different than the US's, though NATO's BVR cape is still better then any FSU tactic.

Are you trying to be one of those people who let facts get in the way of a good argument?

How would you classify the AA-10/R-27 missile (carried, among others, by MiG-29's of all models, Su-27 family)? It is usually compared to the most advanced versions of the AIM-7 Sparrow, although most of it's versions are believed to have a significantly higher range. What about the AA-9/R-33 (carried by the MiG-31, comparable to the AIM-54 Phoenix)? AA-7/R-23/R-24 (MiG-23, somewhat comparable to AIM-7)? AA-6/R-40 (MiG-25/P/PD, Su-15, MiG-31)?

"anbd yes the US has a great BVR cape"

Never disputed that.

"Yes the russians are trying the 'AMRAAMski' as it is dubed but not working yet"

There you go suggesting that the AA-12/R-77 is a copy of the AIM-120...
That missile is estimated to have almost double the range of the AMRAAM, BTW. The missile has been in development since the very early 80's, FYI, while the AMRAAM entered service in 1991 if I'm not mistaken.

Thanks LY744! At least there is some1 on this forum who has respect for foreign aviation (not just US).
This is turning into a X vs. Y thing and it seems to me that people on this forum are gainst it, but I just wanted to express my anger at the fact that there are a lot of people on this forum who make so called 'jokes' about MiG with a pure intention to show its supposedly inferior qualities while it remains one of the many masterpieces of the Russian a/c industry.

LY744 I don't know where you are getting your info, but it sounds like airshow or industry propaganda.

As for the Archers and Alamo's vs Aim-7 and Aim 9s that is great, in fact I said the one area Russia makes a better weapon than the US is in the IR missile industry, but Russia does not have a fully active i.e AR missile working. nothing close to the AIM-120. THe SAR i.e Semi active ones are okay, but your ranges are off.

I'm glad you like them, and they do look pretty at air shows. Why do people buy them now? they are cheap, but you get what you pay for. I've worked with MIGs in several countries and there are reasons they are looking to upgrade to NATO qual systems. I've sat in debriefs with their pilots and GCI in amazement that they couldn't do a 1/4 of what our forces could do in various excer. and such.

I must say...as a neutral bystander, Lt-AWACS has been laying the facts out on the table and backing them up with seemingly factual, accurate first-hand information. Let's give him some respect for doing so. Those arguing with him, on the other hand, seem to be having trouble presenting actual facts or data to back up their own claims.

I REALLY wish people on these forums would stop basing their arguments solely on their enthusiasm for one side.

"but Russia does not have a fully active i.e AR missile working. nothing close to the AIM-120"

Even assuming that the AA-12 is indeed not operational as you say, that has nothing to do with what I was talking about, which is BVR capability, not active radar homing capability, which hasn't come up until now.

"THe SAR i.e Semi active ones are okay, but your ranges are off."

I didn't specify any ranges.

"but it sounds like airshow or industry propaganda....and they do look pretty at air shows"

What's your obsession with air shows? I've never seen a missile fired at an airshow.

As for my sources, everything I said in my previous reply can be atributed to general knowledge, but you can go to The Federation Of American Scientists' Military Analysis Network It is relatively impartial and will give you range numbers that should be used as a rough reference.
So, can you finally explain what you meant by saying that Russia doesn't have BVR capability?

Semi active versus active missiles makes a big difference. Your Fire and Forget AIM-120s (and Aim54s with F-14Ds) actively guide on targets and allow the pilot to Notch (put the RADAR in the Beam) to get away from the adversary threat. The Russians cannot do this. Like our Aim-7s (which we rarely use now other the F-16 ADF on domestic CAPs) the Russian Semi Active missiles to which there are AA-8, 6, even 10s all must be supported by the pilot (or WSO in some cases) until it can be snipped at impact. This puts the pilot in more risk as he must get closer to the 'bad guy'. The Russian have great 'heaters' i.e. IR missiles better than the USA in some respects. They focus more on dogfighting while the US does not we focus on BVR (Beyond visual range) shots With 'unclassfied' ranges well better than the Russians. Thus The 'Active' missiles Aim 120 and the better RADARs (APG 66s, APG 70s and APG 63s etc) give the US their much, MUCH better BVR capes than the Russians (who once again focus on Dogfighting which the US does not)

The FSU (Former Soviet Union) and currently Russian doctrine worked more on Dogfighting with heavy GCI (Ground Control Intercept) dependence and very centralised command and control. WHile the USA and western countries focus on Autonomus Operations and decentrelised execution. Big difference

Oh I have also worked Mig 29's in the US (gee wonder where we get them???) and in Latin America along with the Germans and soon to be Polish Mig-29s.
The SU-27 and various MKK and MKI upgrades are still much more capable than the MIGs.
The SU-27 is the best product the Russians offer other than Pri Trainers.

Now:
The Mig-29 would be great if we (the USA) put a good RADAR in it like a APG 66, APG 63 or even the upgraded F-14s APG- 70. Move the HOTUS around on the mig 29 and give it better RWR gear (i.e. up to NATO standards) and it would be great.

many things go into making 'one plane better than another' but the Wests Pilot Training. Missiles, and RADARs, GCI and AWACS, along with support make most of the Western Platforms better than FSU/Russian platforms. Yes there are serious threats, the Soviets made some of the BEST SAMs around. The SA-5 is BIG threat, this is another reason they didn't focus on BVR technology.

You need to not get pissed. I commented not to upset you folks but point out some things I felt incorrect. As I fly dealing with this weekly. Not to mention the classified level off study our Air Weapons Officers (like me) go into on the AWACS.

and on the Fed of Scientists. yes it is a good base, though of course there are errors. Some countries and manufacturers fudge their numbers (shocking I know) higher or lower to look better or hide capes. I mention airshows because people think if they see it at an airshow it must be true, which of course is false.I will stop ranting now. Ciao

Who was that last post (especially the first paragraph) directed at? All I really want to know is what you meant when you said that "Russian don't have BVR capability", nothing less, nothing more. I know enough about the pathetic maintanence (or lack of it) policies most countries (with the exception of the US and possibly certain Asian nation/s) that operate the MiG-29 undertake, nor the fact that most operators (same exceptions as above) do not have the money to provide their pilots with anything that could be considered anywhere near adequate training. Nor do I care to discuss the tactics and doctrines used by the AF's operating it. I'm sure other users would appreciate it, though.

"The SA-5 is BIG threat"

Yeah, learned it the hard way last year.
Wonder how a HARM would do against an AWACS though.

"Some countries and manufacturers fudge their numbers (shocking I know)"

The response was directed at no one just continuing the discussion thats all, and I know about he AA-10s I thought I stated their capes above, if I didn't make that clear sorry.

The Russians have no BVR capes (so to speak). You could argue semantics and say that a pilot might not have visual on a plane at 10-12 miles so the Russian Semi-Actives and Heaters, especially the 10 A and Cs could do a little 'BVR' but not in the sense of American and NATO BVR capes and standards. That is my point and part of the problems with the Radars which of course lead to problems with the planes. The Russians have fixed some of the minor issues with the SU-27 (and MIg)upgrades though they aren't exporting it all yet. The FSU planes aerodynamically are desigined great it is the insides that always have problems it seems.

as for the Harm thing:
It would be difficult to get up and pop a HARM off against us in the AWACS, and of course at that point we Turn the Radar and IFF off so it goes away.

More Tactics:
Granted Americans don't plan for dogfights anymore like the Russians but hte Aim-9X will keep us safe enough. This should rank up with the Russian IRs and the Israeli Pythons